## Facts

- Before dawn on March 26, 2007, armed, uniformed ICE officers repeatedly buzzed an Englewood, New Jersey apartment building where Erick Rodolfo Oliva-Ramos lived with relatives.
- Because the intercom was broken and the buzzing suggested an emergency, Oliva-Ramos’s sister Clara remotely opened the building’s outer door.
- Clara, standing at the apartment doorway in pajamas, saw multiple ICE officers approach and present an administrative warrant for another sister, Maria, who was not in the apartment.
- ICE entered the apartment, questioned occupants, restrained some, and transported several people for additional interrogation; only Clara could immediately document lawful status.
- Based on information obtained from the operation, the government initiated removal proceedings against Oliva-Ramos for presence without admission or parole.
- Oliva-Ramos moved to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings, arguing egregious Fourth Amendment violations and violations of immigration regulations; he also sought subpoenas and additional evidence about ICE practices to show widespread misconduct.
- The Immigration Judge denied suppression, limited subpoenas/record development, and ordered removal; the BIA dismissed the appeal and denied a motion to supplement the record/reopen.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusionary rule applies in removal proceedings when evidence is obtained through egregious or widespread Fourth Amendment violations.
2. Whether the IJ and BIA denied due process by preventing subpoenas and record development needed to litigate egregiousness or widespread misconduct.
3. Whether violations of immigration regulations governing warrants, arrests, and recordkeeping can justify suppression or other relief.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted the petitions for review, vacated the removal order, and remanded to the BIA.
- The court held that, consistent with the exception contemplated in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the exclusionary rule applies in removal proceedings when evidence is obtained through egregious or widespread Fourth Amendment violations.
- The court held the agency violated due process by foreclosing subpoenas and other evidence relevant to proving egregious or widespread misconduct.
- The court directed the agency on remand to permit meaningful factual development and to reconsider suppression and related regulatory claims under the articulated standards.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence may be suppressed in removal proceedings when obtained through egregious Fourth Amendment violations or through widespread (systematic or recurring) constitutional violations.
- “Egregious” violations include deliberate or intentional misconduct, use of force or coercion, or conduct so unreasonable that it offends fundamental fairness.
- “Widespread” violations may be shown through proof that similar unconstitutional practices recur as part of agency operations, not merely in an isolated incident.
- Due process in removal proceedings requires a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and develop a factual record on suppression claims, including access to relevant subpoenas where necessary.
- Regulatory violations do not automatically equal constitutional violations, but may support suppression or other relief when they are prejudicial or undermine fundamental fairness, and may bear on the egregiousness/widespread inquiry.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit required immigration adjudicators to consider suppression when ICE obtains evidence through egregious or widespread Fourth Amendment violations and held that limiting subpoenas and record development can violate due process; the court vacated the removal order and remanded for further fact-finding and reconsideration under these standards.


Oliva-Ramos v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2012)